This is a thread I'm starting about the onrushing demise of film.  It is getting to the point where, just through attrition, the Somerville is becoming one of the last first run houses to project actual film, as opposed digital.
     As anyone who knows me (or has read any of my now-lost previous posts) is aware, I despise DP with the heat of a super-nova.  It is a gigantic lie, a tremendous scam, a vastly inferior way to show a movie in an auditorium.  Despite its demonstrable shortcomings (& considerable expense), it's taking over anyway, & audiences & exhibitors across the country are getting it in the neck.  The best projected digital image still comes nowhere close to the best projected film image, but you cant use modern prints as a guide, as the prints being struck now are the worst ever.
     The studios are playing a slimy game, by neither announcing nor informing exhibitors of their plans.  Are they going to stop producing 35mm prints?  They wont say.  Is there a cut-off date in the future when prints will cease to be available?  The silence is deafening.
     If they do finally cease print production, over half the theatres in this country will go out of business, because they cant come close to affording the costs of digital conversion.  Add to that the expense of trying to pay for the inevitable upgrades (just think of your computer), & you have a formula for disaster.
     The biggest danger of all is that this might cause the Eastman Kodak company to go under.  If Kodak falls, it's all over: you can forget about seeing a print projected ever again within about a decade or so, as every available venue for getting one closes its doors to protect the now-irreplaceable.
     So for those of you out there who are interested in continuing to see movies the way they are supposed to be seen, there better be one long, sustained howl of outrage, because believe me: those A-Holes at the studios couldnt give a damn.





-- added parenthetical to title for thread clarity, and as not to confuse with that teen vampire film series - admin

have you tried putting a spatial filter on the fraunhoffer plane?

Sadly, this war is lost. Film is going to remain only for archives, museums, cinematheques and a few art houses. And, it's happening at a rapid pace. I will be shocked if mainstream theaters aren't 99.9% digital by the end of the decade (probably much sooner).

A recent article lays it out pretty clearly:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/30/3178044/end-of-the-reel-thing-for-small.html

L.A. Connection wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:54am:

Sadly, this war is lost. Film is going to remain only for archives, museums, cinematheques and a few art houses.

     You know, Tony old sock, I'm not sure if youre reading very well.
     I'm not here trying to fight a "war."  I'm trying to inform people that if nothing is done -- if they act like you & think all is lost & stick their collective heads in the sand -- then not only will film be gone from theatres, it will also be gone from "archives, museums, cinemateques, and art houses," because no one will want to risk damage to a now-irreplaceable print.
     You wont be able to see film.  ANYWHERE.  Thats the point I'm trying to get across; thats what I'm worried about.


Quote:

A recent article lays it out pretty clearly

     This is filled with the same old lies I hear about all the time: the superiority of digital (from the company thats making money selling that garbage), the death of worthless theatres, blah, blah, blah.
     Once again, I'm not arguing that film is in trouble: thats pretty clear.  I'm saying that if people dont raise a bit of a ruckus, it will be gone forever, along with a majority of the venues in this country, which simply will not be able to pay for obsolescence-filled digital crap.
     Right now, there are DPs out there that are incapable of showing some of the new movies: the equipment doesnt work right; there was a recent disaster in Vancouver; you can read about it here:http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2011/10/vancouver-international-film-festival-2011-the-color-wheel-mr-tree-sauna-on-moon/">http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2011/10/vancouver-international-film-festival-2011-the-color-wheel-mr-tree-sauna-on-moon/
     On the other hand, my projectors can run movies shot in the 1890s.  Think about it.
     And then think about this: if prints are no longer available, then what happens to your thon?  Believe me, the studios have little or no intention of converting their back-catalogue to digital.  What are you going to run?  DVDs?  Well, those will look okay on your home screen, but the larger you magnify the image, the lousier it will look.  Whos going to shell out bucks to watch a bunch of discs at a theatre?  WTF is special about that?
     This whole lets go to digital hoopla is really, really stupid, and the buyers remorse will come very quickly, I predict.

Mostly all true.

But, the war has already been fought out here in Hollywood. And, we analog types have lost.

Believe me, I am one of those who fight digital conversion EVERY DAY here on the frontlines, but, we have lost.

Period.

The end.

There will still be a handful of outlets who can and will run film prints, but, virtually all commercial theaters will be digital.

The Marathon will be showing whatever archive and private collector's prints we can scrounge up - and DVDs. It sucks, but, we have to face the inevitable.

To paraphrase Neil Young who said years ago about digital and CD's - This will be the first generation who will embrace a technological "advance" that is actually INFERIOR to what came before.

L.A. Connection wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 4:21pm:

But, the war has already been fought out here in Hollywood. And, we analog types have lost.

     See, heres where we disagree.  I dont think we've "lost" as long as prints are still being produced.  If we ever reach a point where theres no more film & no more labs, then, yes, we've lost.  And we're screwed.


Quote:

There will still be a handful of outlets who can and will run film prints

     If there are no prints to run, this hardly matters.


Quote:

virtually all commercial theaters will be digital.

     Suck, suck, suck.


Quote:

The Marathon will be showing whatever archive and private collector's prints we can scrounge up - and DVDs. It sucks, but, we have to face the inevitable.

     I probably wont want any part of that, so lets hope we can put if off as long as possible.


Quote:

To paraphrase Neil Young who said years ago about digital and CD's - This will be the first generation who will embrace a technological "advance" that is actually INFERIOR to what came before.

     I like that! :D

Quote:

To paraphrase Neil Young who said years ago about digital and CD's - This will be the first generation who will embrace a technological "advance" that is actually INFERIOR to what came before.

I hope Neil Young will remember...The same thing happened in the victorian age. Here for example is a digital reproduction of the wedding picture of Kate Chase-Sprague:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/Karen_Tom/Historic%20Clothing/gov_william_sprague_iv_and_kate_cha.jpg

It's what people now expect of a qualiy old photograph. Then, if you go to the Sprague mansion in Rhode Island and see the original 8" X 10" struck from a glass plate you can count the links in their pocket watch chains!

Quality dropped when the brownie camera (and, with some irony, its projected 35mm film stock) made photography cheap and easy for the amateur.

When the public, now long-accustomed to fuzzy snapshots and shaky-cam movies, visits the museum they marvel at the original which was once the standard. :-?

http://www.oppodigital.com/images/DCDi_noisereduction.jpg

R_F_Fineman wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 6:42pm:

It's what people now expect of a qualiy old photograph. Then, if you go to the Sprague mansion in Rhode Island and see the original 8" X 10" struck from a glass plate you can count the links in their pocket watch chains!

     Obviously, a one-to-one print off a large negative would have fantastic resolution.  Thats why 70mm looks so great on screen: less magnification.


Quote:

Quality dropped when the brownie camera (and, with some irony, its projected 35mm film stock) made photography cheap and easy for the amateur.

     And quality has dropped even further with all these digital cameras, although some of them are starting to look good.  Still not where Kodachrome was (when it frigging existed), but getting better.
     And 8x10 and view cameras still survive.  For now.

kirok wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 6:47pm:

http://www.oppodigital.com/images/DCDi_noisereduction.jpg

     Kirok, you do realize that this process isnt necessary when using film, dont you?  It's the digital transfer that needs to be cleaned up.

it does look like grain noise in the jack N image. but i do contend that a spatial filter can be employed on a digital projection system to remove the raster artifacts.

kirok wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 7:40am:

it does look like grain noise in the jack N image.

     I dont know what you mean by "grain noise."  Thats a term Ive never come across before.

On a related topic.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/

Caleb451 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

On a related topic. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/

     Thanks, Caleb!
     Yeah, I had already read the original article in Creative Cow.
     I love these purblind A-Holes crowing "it's dead!  It's dead!" when well over 50% of the movies being shot today are still being photographed & projected on film.
     As for digital being able to mimic the look of film, that moron has no idea what hes talking about.  It's going to be a long time before that comes to pass, because of the technical limitations of the medium.  Sure, you can get it to look "filmy" on your monitor, but reproducing that look on the big screen is a whole 'nother matter.
     Heres the rub: those bozos will work & work & lie & work to get their new toy to look exactly like film, so you dont have to shoot in....film.  Am I the only one who sees how stupid that is?
     Digital has its own look.  If you want to use or work in that look, fine.  If you want the look of film, shoot on film.  I dont see whats so hard about that.
     I cant wait to read the howls of pain from these sh!t-for-brains scumbags when they go to see some old movie theyve always loved, & the only thing available is a botched digital transfer that looks wretched.  O, how theyll cry then.
     Jerks.

David the Projectionist wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 12:58pm:

kirok wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 7:40am: it does look like grain noise in the jack N image.    I dont know what you mean by "grain noise."  Thats a term Ive never come across before.

It's the agonized cries wheat makes as it is being eaten.

Metaluna wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

David the Projectionist wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 12:58pm: I dont know what you mean by "grain noise."  Thats a term Ive never come across before. It's the agonized cries wheat makes as it is being eaten.

     Perfect!  Now I know!   :D

Quote:

Caleb:On a related topic. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/r_i_p_the_movie_camera_1888_2011/singleton/ [quote]color, widescreen, stereo, etc.–were simply embellishments to a technical paradigm* that has held true since photographic likenesses began to move, and that everyone in the world has thought of as “the movies”

[/quote]

Caleb: I love you man, but I hated that article! When I hear writers use CAMERA and PROJECTOR as if they were interchangable terms, I really should stop reading. When I hear the argument that film is dead because the technology has changed, (which is the logical kin of "writing is dead because they no longer make the Selectric typewriter"), I really should just hit the escape key and continue on with my day. Most of all: I hate when pretentious writers use the word "paradigm*" when they probably mean "paragon"!

I'm ranting...Somebody stop me!...I feel like using BIG FONTS! :o

*A paradigm is a set of assumptions in an explanation and nothing more! A paragon is a peerless example ie. Hamlet: "Man -The paragon of animals!"

R_F_Fineman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 5:51pm:

Caleb: I love you man, but I hated that article! When I hear writers use CAMERA and PROJECTOR as if they were interchangable terms, I really should stop reading. When I hear the argument that film is dead because the technology has changed, (which is the logical kin of "writing is dead because they no longer make the Selectric typewriter"), I really should just hit the escape key and continue on with my day.

     Ghasp!  Do you mean to imply that someone writing about film is an uninformed, pretentious, English-mangling dweeb?  Perish the thought!
     Help me my fainting couch, Belulah, & bring me a mint julep!
     Now you have a glimpse into what I have to deal with almost every day....

     The lone dinosaur of projection wends his weary way over the scorching sand, hoping to find another of his kind.  He finds nothing but decay, decomposition, deterioration, and death.  Death, death, death.  The smell of rot hangs in the air around him.
     Close to him, he hears laughter & song: "Death to that 19th century medium!  It's outlived its usefulness!  New technology!  Better, because we say so!!  Trust us!"
     And then he hears things....
     The wind carries cries from far away....
     About how the Cinerama in Seattle ran a 70mm festival, & could not get through a single show without some technical problem or another....
     About how the Ohio marathon fell hours behind....
     About, about, about...
     "Are there none like me?" he shouts at the sky.  No answer is forthcoming....
     And so he searches on....

     Obviously pretty vainly, I have to say at this point.
     The disasters in Seattle: thats been coming at me from every direction: blown changeovers, lost sound, rotten EQ, dim images; something awful every show!  EVERY FRIGGIN' SHOW!  Theres no excuse for this, other than the fact that anyone who might have known WTF he was doing has long been chased away.
     It makes me really sad.

I'm curious about IMAX theaters, both the huge museum ones and the smaller ones at multiplexes. Are these still 70mm (as I recall Museum of Science you could watch the film itself go through the projector.)
My friends & I attended a revival screening of Ghostbusters at an AMC plex last night. It was obviously shown off a digital copy, likely a DVD, very grainy but watchable.

Unfortunately (and probably deliberately), IMAX has not bothered to differentiate between genuine genuine reels-of-70mm-film-that-require-a-forklift-to-move-with-single-frames-the-size-of-your-fist-projected-with-a-bulb-that-doubles-as-a-death-ray-onto-a-screen-the-size-of-a-medium-sized-office-building IMAX and the digital IMAX-branded projectors they have.  In general, anything that has opened recently is digital, with two 2K projectors running at once for increased brightness.

Generally, the stuff in the museums (or, in the Boston area, furniture stores) that are multiple stories tall are still 70mm (although IMAX and Kodak are working on laser projection tech to go digital with them); the newer, smaller ones are digital.  And apparently still 2K at that - that's roughly Blu-ray resolution, albeit likely with greater color depth and less compression, while 4K projection is becoming increasingly common.

I'd be kind of surprised if the Ghostbusters (and other recent screenings) were actually a DVD; although the one Fathom screening I've seen was not great, I'd say it was still roughly as good as a cable HDTV broadcast.

da_Bunnyman wrote on Oct 21^st, 2011 at 9:12pm:

I'm curious about IMAX theaters, both the huge museum ones and the smaller ones at multiplexes. Are these still 70mm.

     For now.  IMAX is slowly removing all their film projectors & replacing them with a vastly inferior digital projector.


Quote:

My friends & I attended a revival screening of Ghostbusters at an AMC plex last night. It was obviously shown off a digital copy, likely a DVD, very grainy but watchable.

     Ghostbusters always was on the grainy side, but the digital transfer & projection couldnt have helped.  BTW, the re-release was digital only.  If you wanted to run a print, they wouldnt give it to you.
     Theyre just training you to accept crap!
     When Ghostbusters came out, I ran that sucker in 70mm.  That didnt look too grainy!

Jay Seaver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2011 at 9:46pm:

Unfortunately (and probably deliberately), IMAX has not bothered to differentiate between...70mm-film...and the digital IMAX.

     Quite deliberate.  Why inform the audience youre in the process of screwing over?
     Pay the same admission for degraded presentation?  You dont want them knowing that.


Quote:

Generally, the stuff in the museums (or, in the Boston area, furniture stores) that are multiple stories tall are still 70mm (although IMAX and Kodak are working on laser projection tech to go digital with them); the newer, smaller ones are digital.

     My understanding is that the plan is to make them all digital.  Soon.


Quote:

And apparently still 2K at that - that's roughly Blu-ray resolution, albeit likely with greater color depth and less compression, while 4K projection is becoming increasingly common.

     And 4K still has only a small fraction of the resolution of a 35mm frame, so you can just imagine how ridiculous it is when you run it up against a frame of IMAX!
     No, the whole digital projection thing, as Ive said a few times in this thread, is a gigantic swindle: audiences & theatres are the target: theyre the ones who will have to pony up for something that used to be great, but now sucks.  Or, to be more precise, something that always had the potential to be great, being replaced by something that does not have, & is unlikely to have for quite a while, that same potential.


Quote:

I'd be kind of surprised if the Ghostbusters (and other recent screenings) were actually a DVD;

     Twasnt.  Standard DCI compatible HDD.  2K, I believe.

My biggest problem right now is that even when seeing movies that were shot ON FILM, they are mostly projected via digital projection. Most screens at the multiplexes in my area are now digital. So, it's becoming increasingly difficult to see Film on Film. You don't get a true FILM look when it's projected digitally - the blacks and shadows get all mushy for instance.

It's getting to the point where I'd pay Extra to see a film shown on film. Hey, I know, just we need -- another theater "upcharge".......... :(

L.A. Connection wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 6:17pm:

My biggest problem right now is that even when seeing movies that were shot ON FILM, they are mostly projected via digital projection. Most screens at the multiplexes in my area are now digital. So, it's becoming increasingly difficult to see Film on Film. You don't get a true FILM look when it's projected digitally - the blacks and shadows get all mushy for instance.

     The problem is bigger than that.  Besides the fact that digital projection make movies that were shot on film look like doggy-doo, 99% of the prints being struck today are off a DI, & they look like doggy-doo, too!  So even if you do get the opportunity to see a movie projected from actual film, the DI is so craptacular that it's only moderately better than the DP.  (I have seen a couple of decent DI prints, but theyre unusual.)
     There are only a couple of film-makers who still use an internegative to strike prints.  Everybody else: nope!

Another nail in the coffin. From right here on the frontlines:

H’wd’s Oldest Movie Camera Rental Shop Auctions Off Entire Inventory Of 16mm And 35mm Cameras

Birns & Sawyer, the oldest movie camera rental shop in Hollywood, made history last week when it auctioned off its entire remaining inventory of 16- and 35-mm film cameras.
Owner and cinematographer Bill Meurer said he didn’t want to part with the cameras, but had little choice as the entertainment industry has largely gone digital. “People aren’t renting out film cameras in sufficient numbers to justify retaining them,’’ Meurer said in an interview at his North Hollywood warehouse, where he  rents out cameras, lenses, lighting equipment and grip trucks. “Initially, I felt nostalgic, but 95% of our business is digital. We’re responding to the market.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/10/on-location-camera-rental-shop-auctions-its-film-cameras-.html

L.A. Connection wrote on Oct 25^th, 2011 at 8:52pm:

Birns & Sawyer, the oldest movie camera rental shop in Hollywood, made history last week when it auctioned off its entire remaining inventory of 16- and 35-mm film cameras.

     Theyll be sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry.
     You just wait & see.

     So, for those of you who insist the days of film are numbered, theres this:
       http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/movies/horror-film-goes-back-to-vhs-tape.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Farts%2Findex.jsonp
     OMFG.
     Film will go, but this will live on?
     You cant make this stuff up!

Great article....

BUT---------

Can you say "NICHE"???!!!!!!  ;D


P.S. Never said film is 100% going away any time soon.



David the Projectionist wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 4:46pm:

So, for those of you who insist the days of film are numbered, theres this:        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/movies/horror-film-goes-back-to-vhs-tape.html?_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Farts%2Findex.jsonp      OMFG.      Film will go, but this will live on?      You cant make this stuff up!

     Well, it's getting even stupider & worse.
     Turner has announced a one-day-only release of West Side Story.
     Which was shot on 65mm film & released on 70mm with six stunning tracks of sound.
     The one day release is available in digital only.  I think all the pixels in 2K combined have the same amount of information as 1/128th of an inch of 70mm film (something like that).
     So, it will look like total crap.  But, you know, you can see it on the "big screen."
     It's like a sick joke.
     Avoid.

     Then theres this:  http://www.indiegogo.com/TheLostPictureShow
     Ian's on camera here, as he was interviewed by these people.
     Kiss it all goodbye, folks.
     Just dont whine when it's too late.

Ian=my hero.

Folks I know at the New Beverly Cinema are putting together a petition to save 35mm prints for cinemas. Below is a link wher YOU can sign the petition as well.
The New Beverly is the only remaining full time revival house left in L.A. (when I moved here, there were several). I've seen many of my favorite screenings of all time there. The major point that they are making is that, as David here has noted, is that the studios are phasing out 35mm prints. In the long run that would mean that the Marathon will be digitally projected, save for a few collector's prints we could scrounge up.

Sign, please: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm/


http://mandelweb.com/2004pics/2004theapple001.jpg

Only You can help keep THE APPLE alive in 35!

http://mandelweb.com/2004pics/2004theapple001.jpg

     Of course, it could fairly be argued that preserving prints of Xanadu & The Apple for future generations.....

An article concerning the Petition: http://www.movieline.com/2011/11/talkback-whos-willing-to-fight-for-35mm.php

Have YOU signed it yet?


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm/

     Heres what it's coming to, folks:
     Went to see The Wages of Fear at the Harvard Film Archive last night.  The print was brand new, & the HFA is boasting about its acquisition, arranged in conjunction with Janus Films.  The specific quote, made in front of a fairly large (for the Archive) audience: "We will have this for the enjoyment of future students and scholars."
     Annnnnnnd....the print sucked.  And I mean sucked.
     First of all, it was printed off Criterion's HD master, which is what they used for their Blu-Ray release, & it looked it: the whites were blown out, the contrast ratios were shot to hell, the shadow details were lost, the resolution was sketchy (at best), & certain scenes & shots were fuzzy & out of focus.
     And it was printed on colour stock, which means that instead of being black & white, it was olive & white, or blue & white, or magenta & white, with the occasional flash of off-colour weirdness thrown in for good measure.  It looked atrocious, & I actually felt I had to apologise to a friend of mine (who had never seen it before & attended at my behest) for that having been his first exposure to the movie.  It really was that bad.
     Ive run at least three different prints of this, over my long & peculiar "career", & even the worst of them looked better than this, including a really worn 16mm one that I ran at the Brattle.
     So now: even when you go to see a film shot on film, & even when that film happens to be that director's best work, there is apparently no need to bother keeping to the movie's original look or the director's original intentions (despite what the scumbags at Criterion might argue)!  You just cant keep ahead of this spreading blight, no matter how sincerely you try!
     Bad news on the cinema front, kids, because not only are they successfully killing new films, theyre out to murder the old ones, as well.

The problem with cheaply printing on color stock goes back a ways. It really is irritating.
The worst case I recall was for the documentary VISIONS OF LIGHT which was a tribute to movie Cinematographers. It was downright offensive to see dozens and dozens of gorgeous B & W clips with color bleeding all over the image. Nice "tribute", eh?
Surprised they even bothered striking a film print on WAGES OF FEAR. A number of theaters now just show the DVD when there is Blu Ray "restoration". Or, they just deliver Digital Prints. A year or two ago, there was a travelling festival of Hitchcock films that had been "restored". It was entiled Hitch in HD. WTF??!! If I want to watch a video of Hitchcock's films, I'll stay at home........

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 1:46pm:

The problem with cheaply printing on color stock goes back a ways.

     Yes, it does.  Remember all those anaglyph prints of 3D movies using the red/blue system?  The B&W was all clotted up in that as well.
     Just doesnt look very good.  Never has, never will.


Quote:

Nice "tribute", eh?

     They dont care.


Quote:

Surprised they even bothered striking a film print on WAGES OF FEAR.

     As I noted, it was an arrangement between the HFA & Janus.  Not sure what the deal was, whether the HFA paid for the print, or if Janus "donated" it.  Whatever.
     In fifty to a hundred years or so, when the colour fades (as it will), the print will be unshowable.  Kind of funny, when you think about it.


Quote:

A year or two ago, there was a travelling festival of Hitchcock films that had been "restored". It was entitled Hitch in HD.

     Yeah, as if FILM werent already HD plus plus plus!  ;D  Morons.

Aaah, I wondered who that was making the disgusted comments when the Criterion Collection logo came up.  Really, that was just tremendously disappointing; the digital restoration must have just been at Blu-ray resolution.  I personally didn't notice the color stock, but as I like to sit close to the front, jaggies bug the hell out of me.  I grit my teeth when seeing the credits look likes something off a computer monitor in a modern film, but then I can at least say that for a good chunk of the audience, it looks "right" and of the time.  In something 50 years old, it's downright offensive.


That's my big problem with that petition that's going around.  On a certain level, I really don't care about "the human touch"; if I can see the projectionists' hands in what I'm watching, it means someone has slipped up.  I just think it's very clear to anybody who watches movies closely that a fair amount of image quality has been sacrificed for the convenience of digital tools.  The crazy thing is, you'd think that studios would have learned their lesson from the last few years, when all the 1980s/1990s TV shows shot on videotape looked worse in HD than the older things shot on film.  And yet, here they are, placing upper limits on how good their product can look down the road again.

Jay Seaver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

Aaah, I wondered who that was making the disgusted comments when the Criterion Collection logo came up.

     That wasnt me!  I have to keep my silence in the Cathedral.  I giggled once during a showing of King of Kings (during a particularly guffaw-inducing scene), & you would have thought I took a piss in the Holy Water from the reaction.


Quote:

Really, that was just tremendously disappointing; the digital restoration must have just been at Blu-ray resolution.

     Which is what I said.


Quote:

In something 50 years old, it's downright offensive.

     Which is also what I said!


Quote:

That's my big problem with that petition that's going around.  On a certain level, I really don't care about "the human touch"; if I can see the projectionists' hands in what I'm watching, it means someone has slipped up.

     Hey!  Thats my JOB youre talking about, you great dope!  And it takes a whole lot of "human touches" to be invisible, dontcha know!


Quote:

The crazy thing is, you'd think that studios would have learned their lesson from the last few years, when all the 1980s/1990s TV shows shot on videotape looked worse in HD than the older things shot on film.  And yet, here they are, placing upper limits on how good their product can look down the road again.

     Read this over twenty times:  THEY...DO...NOT...CARE.

David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 28^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Hey!  Thats my JOB youre talking about, you great dope!  And it takes a whole lot of "human touches" to be invisible, dontcha know!

I get that, and that's the way it is with most people's jobs - it takes a lot of effort to present something that appears seamless.  Heck, I am at this moment banging my head against a new tool that is threatening to make my previous expertise obsolete, so I get it.  I'm just saying that digital projection's greatest sin is not that it is frequently automated, because that in and of itself doesn't really affect me when I go to the movies unless the automation has been done poorly (which, considering that it's in the hands of people like the folks at Boston Common who still haven't figured out the widescreen settings of the TV showing trailers in the lobby after ten years, isn't unlikely).

After all, that's just an appeal to nostalgia, and while that makes people feel good, having that argument front and center as opposed to "digital makes these films look worse and locks them into never looking better" seems less persuasive to me.


It's just amazing how these people seem to refuse to learn from history.  Even if you take folks who just think film looks better out of the equation, or overlook the question of just how much effort studios are going to put into making 4K transfers of B- or C-list titles...  Ten years from now, when theaters have upgraded to 8K projection and consumer electronics companies are trying to sell 2160p TVs as luxury items, studios are going to be kicking themselves at having capped their libraries at 2K resolution.

Jay Seaver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2011 at 5:21pm:

as opposed to "digital makes these films look worse and locks them into never looking better" seems less persuasive to me.

     Even though it's true?


Quote:

It's just amazing how these people seem to refuse to learn from history.

     Can we say "trickle-down" economics?  Lefties are out to destroy America?  Muslims/Commies/Anarchists/etc hate us for our freedoms?
     Come on!  The entire story of this country is all about people not learning from history!  Look at how the bozos down south have been rewriting the actual cause of the Civil War, almost from the day they surrendered!


Quote:

Even if you take folks who just think film looks better out of the equation

     Even though thats demonstrably, technically, provably true?
     Why, exactly, would we want to take them out of the equation?  Does the truth make you uncomfortable, Jay?


Quote:

or overlook the question of just how much effort studios are going to put into making 4K transfers of B- or C-list titles

     Even though they arent?


Quote:

Ten years from now, when theaters have upgraded to 8K projection

     Youre assuming, perhaps naively, that there will still be theatres around.  Guess again.  This digital garbage is going to wipe out a majority of them, & when the studios move everyone over to a VOD format -- you know, motion pictures are just "content" to them -- you can kiss the remaining ones bye-bye.
     Nobody will be able to afford an 8K upgrade.  Do you have any idea how much thats going to cost?


Quote:

and consumer electronics companies are trying to sell 2160p TVs as luxury items, studios are going to be kicking themselves at having capped their libraries at 2K resolution.

     What you really have to worry about is that they havent chucked all the original negatives into the trash in an effort to save on warehousing costs.
     And, just in case you didnt get it the first time, repeat after me:  THEY...DO...NOT...CARE.

     And then theres this: http://www.thelastprojectionist.co.uk/
     My god, theyre all rushing to record our demise!  Ive had three people wanting to interview me on camera about this!
     Better they spent their time fighting this digital rubbish!

Well, there's always good old analog VHS Tape!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/movies/horror-film-goes-back-to-vhs-tape.html?_r=2&hpw

Like the Best Zombies, VHS Just Won’t Die

By ERIK PIEPENBURG
Published: October 26, 2011

   FOR horror fans like Evan Husney, a movie that looks like it’s been art-directed to death is a real killer.

   
"It’s hard to get into the aesthetic of shakycam, pretty people, safe scares — like something jumping out at you — and the digital photography and CG blood,” he said.

Mr. Husney, the director of the independent distribution company Drafthouse Films, is part of a small but devoted subset of fans, distributors and programmers who thrill to low-budget horror from the movies of the 1980s: the kind in which brains were made of Jell-O and the cast was paid in wine coolers. These fans aren’t watching movies on a tablet or DVD. Instead they’re blowing the dust off their VCRs and sliding in movies that have been newly released on the behemoths known as VHS tapes.........

L.A. Connection wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 6:35pm:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/movies/horror-film-goes-back-to-vhs-tape.html?_r=2&hpw

     I posted this link on 26 Oct, & you responded to it, Tony!  Is your memory slipping?

Well, here's a more apropos piece anyway. It's an interview with Spielberg's long-time Director of Photography (and a colleague of mine) Janusz Kaminski. He talks about his love for shooting on FILM and his fear that he soon will be unable to continue to do so. Also, he reveals that he has NEVER seen a 3D movie!

http://www.movieline.com/2011/12/janusz-kaminski-on-shooting-war-horse-the-end-of-film-and-those-spielberg-close-ups.php

     As long as film exists, people will continue to shoot with it, but theres the rub: as long as film exists.

     What you all have to look forward to: this was shot -- I would guess with a phone -- during the last 20 mins of a showing of Hugo.
     Wouldnt happen with film.
     TV.  Wave of the future.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N66d7cnJpLY

i thinnk you picked a poor example.
did these folks all get their money back?

David the Projectionist wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 11:53pm:

Wouldnt happen with film.      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N66d7cnJpLY

I'm not exactly sure about that.
That happens to be my "Go-To" theater in NYC and the pre-show material (which is showing over the movie) has been video projection for years, it doesn't guarantee that the feature is digital as well. It may very well be in that case, but it's not guaranteed.

kirok wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

i thinnk you picked a poor example. did these folks all get their money back?

When I've had films go south at this theater in the past they hand out free passes, not refunds.

By the same token, I really want to avoid any films that have faded to red.  I can put up with sync problems, scratches (to some degree) and almost anything else but I cannot abide red prints.  It is extremely distracting and irritating. 

kirok wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

did these folks all get their money back?

     I have no way of knowing.

Caleb451 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

When I've had films go south at this theater in the past they hand out free passes, not refunds.

     Which is an old theatre trick of ripping you off.
     Passes cost them nothing, & they get to keep the admission percentage that you all ready gave them.
     Some passes come with a "surcharge" of a buck or two: the theatre gets to keep that, & it actually gives them more money than the percentage they end up with from a regular ticket.
     It guarantees that youll return, & spend more money at the concession stand (the profit centre).
     Always demand a refund: always, always, always.  That hits them right in the wallet.

Caleb451 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

I'm not exactly sure about that. That happens to be my "Go-To" theater in NYC and the pre-show material (which is showing over the movie) has been video projection for years, it doesn't guarantee that the feature is digital as well. It may very well be in that case, but it's not guaranteed.

     It's a perfectly fine example.  It shows, as usual, that:
     1.  Theres nothing conscious in the booth.  These large chains give less than a sh!t about how the movie looks or sounds: buy your popcorn, make like a couch potato, go away.
     2.  The ads are so important that standard system set-up (projector on = no power to ad device) was not installed.
     3.  Modern audiences are so focking stupid that they sit there & laugh instead of stampeding en masse to demand refunds & eviscerate the staff, which is why, BTW, quality has plummeted: these megacraplexes know they can get away with anything.

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

By the same token, I really want to avoid any films that have faded to red.  I can put up with sync problems, scratches (to some degree) and almost anything else but I cannot abide red prints.  It is extremely distracting and irritating.

     Ah, rednicolor!
     Almost all non-Technicolor prints that were struck between 1952 & 1982 have now faded from some degree to completely.
     If any original print from that time period is booked, you get the red!
     Outside of having a new print made, nothing can be done about it.  :o

David the Projectionist wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

If any original print from that time period is booked, you get the red! Outside of having a new print made, nothing can be done about it.  :o

http://www.medhelp.org/drug_images/AA008030.JPG

David the Projectionist wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 19th, 2012 at 10:33am: By the same token, I really want to avoid any films that have faded to red.  I can put up with sync problems, scratches (to some degree) and almost anything else but I cannot abide red prints.  It is extremely distracting and irritating.      Ah, rednicolor!      Almost all non-Technicolor prints that were struck between 1952 & 1982 have now faded from some degree to completely.      If any original print from that time period is booked, you get the red!      Outside of having a new print made, nothing can be done about it.  :o

Fading to some degree is one thing.  Red is another thing all together. I have seen plenty of films from this stretch of time that can be enjoyed.  A red print is not enjoyable.  I would prefer digital to a red print.      

Metaluna wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

David the Projectionist wrote on Jan 19th, 2012 at 12:23pm: If any original print from that time period is booked, you get the red! Outside of having a new print made, nothing can be done about it.  :o http://www.medhelp.org/drug_images/AA008030.JPG

Unfortunately, it won't work for faded prints.  All this bitchin' and moanin' about digital and yet people are OK with totally red prints.  I am not talking about partial color loss, I can live with that.  I am talking' Last Woman on Earth red. 

http://blissfulcat.com/le_funny/img/dl/6/2011-09-10/6_2011-09-10-120510_FbPWHggvC0GHWGq6YYgk.jpg

http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/stlouisl.jpg
BETTER DEAD THAN RED

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Pretty_In_Pink.jpg/220px-Pretty_In_Pink.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Pretty_In_Pink.jpg/220px-Pretty_In_Pink.jpg

No way Duckie, no way

Remember last year's RED MENACE Roger Corman's "Last Woman on Earth?

Here's the original Trailer as it was meant to be seeen in the full beauty of CORMANCOLOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVVeuDKvWWI :)

Not to be confused with Angry Red Planet where the red sequences were intentional 
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/47womanx.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzkBJA-Tlxw

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

Not to be confused with Angry Red Planet where the red sequences were intentional.

Not to be confused with The Rocky Horror Picture Show where the Magenta sequences were intentional.

http://www.the-masters-affair.co.uk/cast_files/magenta1.jpg

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 2:57pm:
http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/stlouisl.jpg

     Youll notice that theres just a touch of blue still left!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3N2FVQpNvcg/R2y9kD61E2I/AAAAAAAAAn0/dzYn0X2KM2g/s400/vcountymapredblue.png

here's a cartograph of the by county results of the 2000 presidential election. red indicates the counties that went for bush. blue indicates the counties that went to gore. it looks like tulsa oklahoma is 1000 miles from any democratic county.

kirok wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

here's a cartograph of the by county results of the 2000 presidential election. red indicates the counties that went for bush. blue indicates the counties that went to gore.

     What that cartograph actually shows is how many idiots we have in this country, which is why we're currently in a state of collapse.
     And Gore won the popular vote.  Thats no longer in even the slightest doubt.

     Getting back now to the topic that this thread actually exists to discuss, heres the latest, from Variety:

     http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118048861?refcatid=1009

     I'm going to live to see the day when these video-boosters wake up & discover that their work is irretrievably lost.  How I will laugh then.  ;D

     For those of you who cant access the Variety article I linked to above, here it is:

Posted: Wed., Jan. 18, 2012, 10:30pm PT
Acad sounds alarm about fragility of digital prod'n
Sci-Tech report spotlights short lifespan of non-film formats
By David S. Cohen
Milt Shefter

'The Digital Dilemma 2'
On the day that Sundance kicked off and Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy, the Motion Picture Academy threw a bucket of ice water on the digital filmmaking revolution.

Preserving movies is an ongoing issue for the entire industry, but a new report from the Acad warns that movies shot or finished digitally face a lifespan so short they can be lost even before they get distribution. Worse, indie and docu filmmakers, whose work is most vulnerable to this risk, seem oblivious to the danger.Those grim conclusions, found in the long-awaited Part Two of the Acad's Science & Technology Council "Digital Dilemma" report on the problems of digital preservation, will likely make for some somber chatter in Park City.

Where part one (released in 2007) focused on the studios, the second installment looks at indies and docs and finds "the technology that makes it easy to make the picture also underlies the lack of guaranteed long-term access to it." And while the Acad found those communities still ignorant of the fragility of digital files, it may not matter -- those sectors lack the resources to attack the problem anyway.

"The bottom line is we're running out of time," Sci-Tech Council member Milt Shefter, co-author of the report, told Variety. "The time for studies is past. We have to find some solutions or we're going to lose a lot of material."

In short, digital storage, be it on hard drives, DVDs or solid-state memory, simply isn't on a par for anything close to the 100-plus-year lifespan of film. The life of digital media is measured in years, not decades, and file formats can go obsolete in months, not years. As the report explains, that affects movies still looking for distribution, not merely library titles. "In general," the report says, "independent films that beat the odds and secure some form of distribution do so after a much longer time period than movies produced by the major studios. This time period quite likely exceeds the 'shelf life' of any digital work; that is, by the time distribution is secured, the digital data may become inaccessible.

"Most of the filmmakers surveyed and interviewed for this report were not aware of the perishable nature of digital content or how short its unmanaged lifespan is compared to the 95-plus years that U.S. copyright laws allow filmmakers to benefit from their work."

Much indie content, the report says, is in danger of being lost before it can receive the full benefits of those 95 years of protection.

Shefter called filmmakers' ignorance of the issue "probably our biggest surprise."

"They were concentrating on the benefits of digital workflow," he said, "but weren't thinking about what happens to their (digital) masters. They're structured to make their movie, get it in front of an audience, and then move onto the next one."

Also a surprise to the Acad's researchers: Documentarians also were unaware of the vulnerability of digital files. On the contrary, documakers were generally excited about the easy access to footage in the digital age. When Acad interviewers raised the idea that there might be "a black hole for the last 25-30 years" because digital files aren't being preserved, said Shefter, "they really didn't get that."

"The main difference between analog and digital is, analog was store-and-ignore," said Shefter. "Digital has to be actively managed."

Such active management is expensive, however, vastly more expensive than putting film in a vault. Even when they take such steps, however, filmmakers and producers are up against an insurmountable problem: The only reliable method for archiving digital images is to go analog. The best archiving solution today is to print out to film, ideally with a three-color separation printed onto black-and-white archival film. That's a very expensive solution.

The Academy is doing what it can to help address the problem, said Andy Maltz, director of the Sci-Tech Council. "One of the keys to preservation is to have file-format standards, so if you can recover the zeros and ones, you'll know what they mean and know what they're supposed to look like on the screen." The Acad's Image Interchange Framework project is helping create such standards. SMPTE will be publishing the first of them later this year.

The Acad is coordinating Hollywood's efforts to work with the Library of Congress and with other industries to find a method for archiving digital data. But, said Maltz, "It's up to the manufacturers to incorporate archival lifetimes into their products." Fortunately for the entertainment industry, it's not alone in facing this issue. Banking, medicine, energy and other fields all need to preserve digital data for more than a few years, and they're all looking for the same elusive breakthrough.

The report says that unless preservation becomes a requirement for planning, budgeting and marketing strategies, it will remain a problem for indie filmmakers, documentarians and archives alike. "These communities, and the nation's artistic and cultural heritage, would greatly benefit from a comprehensive, coordinated digital preservation plan for the future."

The report includes proposals for more education, sharing of information and collaboration among archives and other orgs.

Shefter was careful to say that the Council and the report are not attacking digital, which offers "tremendous benefits" in some areas. Said Shefter, "The broader issue is (that) as we embrace the benefits of the newer technology, one thing is missing: long-term guaranteed access. That's what the analog world had and we think any replacement should have at least as much."

     And you can download the report here:

     http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/digitaldilemma2/index.html.

     And theres a petition to keep film alive.  You can sign it here (and please do):

     http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fight-for-35mm/

I read this about our local drive-in:
http://mendondrivein.com/

And I thought of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIvH2dPolsM

Egads! Even the vaunted NYC institution, Film Forum has apparently given up on film. This article practically seems to take glee on stomping on good ole 35mm:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2012/03/5405944/clutch-screenings-film-forum-makes-case-switch-film-digital-projecti


I guess my first question on this is: Was this a 'Fair Fight'?? I've seen 4k digital and it can look quite good. But, were the 35mm prints top notch as well? Was the Projector burning the bulbs at full light levels? The fact that the article mentions a blue-ish tint to the Black and White movie tends to indicate this was a newish modern print done on COLOR Film stock.

I'm also surprised that the author didn't point out the inherent flaws of the Lawrence of Arabia comparison, which would be thrown out of any court in the land.  Talk about rigging the game.

I saw Sony's new 35mm print of Five Easy Pieces last year, and it looked just fine to me.  One of the article commenters points out the dangers of color boosting in cases like this, which is definitely a fear of mine as well.

On the plus side, I saw a 4K screening of Taxi Driver last year.  I've also seen it on 35mm several times, but for long stretches of this viewing I was able to forget that I was watching a digital copy.  Now, there are certain qualities of that film (the often muted color palate, the grittiness of Chapman's cinematography) that make it easier to mask possible signs of digitization, but it still looked damn good.

As at least a part time programmer, my greatest fear (visual quality aside) of this digital switch remains the high potential for an abandonment of democratic representation of all films in the studio catalogs.  One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles have been experiencing a golden age of repertory cinema is due to the availability (through studios, but also through private collectors) of often rare and obscure film titles on 35mm.  There might be a bright future ahead for beautiful digital restorations of tried and true titles like Strangelove, Gone With the Wind, etc., but I have a hard time believing that the studio bean counters are going to keep their archives stocked with the lower level titles that gave them their breadth and depth for so many years.

Warners has made a big deal out of their movement away from 35mm and their concurrent digital scanning of their entire catalog.  But does that mean that someday soon a rep house will be able to book a 4K screening of Wolfen?  Or are they going to be subjected to playing the DVD?  I have to believe that the aforementioned bean counters (inspired by the bottom line-driven corporations that control every studio) have already decided that it's not profitable enough to maintain that quality in their archives, especially for titles that might only see several screenings a year.  And so we move one step closer to many smaller titles falling through the cracks, at least in terms of being presented in their best possible forms.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason for this is the studios already predicting the death of theatrical exhibition in the next 10-15 years.  After all, if theaters aren't going to be around, why maintain theatrical archives?

Good, if lengthy, article on this subject posted today in LAWeekly:

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Maybe if some big time successful directors seriously get behind this, something can be done.

Today, Christopher Nolan again reiterated that Film is still better than digital, both in the filming AND in the projection. Perhaps, folks can dismiss a lowly film technician like myself (although Film & TV productions is my everyday work job).

But, take it from Nolan - Film is still superior. Period.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-chris-nolan-digital-335514

http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/christo ... 18988.html

     Heres the latest, exactly as Ive been warning about (& screaming & yelling & shouting about) to no avail.  Read it & weep:

     http://m.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/with-35mm-film-dead-will-classic-movies-ever-look-the-same-again/265184/

Ah, but, we have a nice stockpile of DVDs ready to be shown.

Cue, the DVD projector, Dave.

Dave?

isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

Quote:

The Atlantic Article: "2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray...Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad."

Quote:

Kirok: isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

The answer it seems is "yes" and "nooooooooo!" It's sort of like preserving ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on microfiche. Yes, it's a stable medium but no, it doesen't look at all as Michelangelo intended.

Given that, according to the Atlantic article, even Martin Scorsese can't score a print of his own film from the 90's; what does the future hold for LA and Garen's best efforts to find thirteen or so movies in 35mm for the Marathon?

I fear the bullet must be bitten. Dave: If DVD must be shown what are the options as far as er, uh, "projection" quality and what can the Somerville provide?

how about over-sampling for high resolution and using reed soloman encoding for long term preservation. a special one of a kind previewer could be constructed. it would have 10 billion pixels and be on a 10 foot by 16 foot flat panel. that's about 500 pixels per inch. the image generated by the previewer could be filmed onto celluloid frame by frame.

David K can fill in the tech details, but, to those who think "Digital" is some magical elixar that will "save" movies (for the Marathon and other revival locations) there is one important thing that must be kept in mind:

"DIGITAL PROJECTION" does NOT necessarily mean that you are showing a proper digital "print" of a movie (DCP).

Only brand new films are released in digital print form - a DCP: DIGITAL CINEMA PACKAGE. A few major restorations over the past few years like TAXI DRIVER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA etc. have also had DCP's made. But, that 1987 cult film you loved? Faaaaaaaaaaaaat chance that will ever have a DCP made of it. The studio will send you a plain old simple DVD/Blu Ray you can buy online for $6. And, even a new film can often be shown with a plain old DVD or Blu Ray, particularly art-house and indie films. And, DVD/Blu Ray was meant to be seen on a 50 inch TV at home - not a 50 FOOT screen.

It's also time that theaters start CLEARLY advertising when they are showing DVDS and charging $10 for the privilige of seeing a projection of a movie you can BUY/Download outright for that price or less and keep forever.

One of the great ripoffs going on right now are the Fathom Events screenings like the recent FRANKENSTEIN Halloween special. What they don't tell you is that it's basically an HD TV broadcast that is beamed to local theaters. So, you were paying $10 to see a Turner Classic Movies episode you can see for Free in your home. Un-Fathomable!!!

As most of you know, I co-organize the annual Ohio SHOCK AROUND THE CLOCK 24-Hour Horror Marathon, so a fair amount of my time over the last few years has been spent wrangling prints and researching archives (studio or otherwise.)  We've been pretty firm in our belief in showing 35mm prints, so I can assuredly say that the situation for repertory film screenings is both as bleak as the article paints, while also being somewhat interesting and intermittently vibrant.

Yes, the selection of 35mm prints being made available has dwindled, especially if the venue only has a platter system (or film projectors at all.)  And, as L.A. stated, even DCP is no guarantee of salvation for some of these titles.  We're at an interesting middle ground in which it's unclear which films will receive high quality DCP restorations.  On one hand, those classic repertory titles will, indeed, live on in the new format.  But yeah, more obscure cult films are likely to have a hard time popping up again.  But there's some hope: a friend at Criterion (which handles 20th Century Fox's catalog), told me this summer that Fox is restoring PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE on 2K DCP.

And this bring to me to what's not necessarily bad: the individual studios themselves.  Unfortunately, a once stalwart group like Warner Bros. (whose repertory division used to be top notch) has essentially stopped loaning prints to all but the most esteemed venues (although, to be fair, this seems more of an edict from the corporate suits than of the rep. division itself.)  Fox has a good selection of restored prints in their archive, but to show one, the venue must often have a major member of the cast or crew on hand...and have a dual projector system (more on that in a minute.)

But then there's Universal, Park Circus (who handles the catalog of MGM and others) and Sony Classics, all of which who have shown a commitment to continuing with film and all of which who are very easy to deal with.  The catch, of course, is that theaters with a dual projector system have much greater access to film prints than other venues.

And the collector/private market is still a very viable source.  I belong to an online programmer's forum that has been a fantastic source for prints.  For every studio that slowly turns off the spigot on film, there's an American Genre Film Archive (the Alamo Drafthouse's film archive) or an Exhumed Films (the Philly collective that's run obscure horror and exploitation titles for almost two decades) that keeps film alive.  And that's not counting individual collector's with somewhat smaller, yet still valuable personal archives.  Again, a dual projector system makes accessing these prints easier (the AGFA only loans to two projector venues), but the lesser known prints are still out there.

This year's Ohio Horror Marathon featured the following titles:

POSSESSION
AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE
WEREWOLVES ON WHEELS
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
VIDEODROME
ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES
THE DEVILS
KILL LIST
DEAD ALIVE
WHITE ZOMBIE
THE LAST CIRCUS

With the exception of THE DEVILS (a notoriously hard title to book on film, which we had to show from a digital source), all of these titles were on film.  POSSESSION was the the result of the good guys at Bleeding Light Film Group, who undertook a restoration of the film with a full intention of producing a brand, spanking new print.  And aside from a merely okay print of WEREWOLVES ON WHEELS, the rest of the titles were gorgeous.  A few were new prints.

The bad news is that 90% of theaters continue to be shut out of screening some of these films.  But dual projector houses (like the Somerville) still have access to many titles...for now.

     I will try to respond to all of these, but it may take me some time.  Lets begin with a couple of points that need to be strongly stressed:
     1.  DCI compliant content derived from film sources does not have the same look, sound, or feel as an original film print.  So all this hoopla about how it's "just the same" is a pile of sh!t.  No digital transfer Ive ever seen (and Ive now been forced to see lots) looks anything like, say, an IB Tech print.  Black & white transfers fare even worse.  A majority of the people watching these train wrecks (many of whom are in a position to comment in the media about them) have no idea what theyre seeing, and, frankly, have their heads up their asses.
     2.  The current "standard" for these transfers is 2K.  To put this in its proper perspective, be aware that a flat 1.85 print is about 10K.  A scope print is about 15-18K.  You are, therefore, watching a substantially degraded image.  The sound isnt much better.
     At some point next year, I'll be giving a lecture to local film professors, teachers, reviewers, etc, that will show up this digital garbage once & for all.  No one will think it's as good as film by the time I get through!

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 3:29am:

Ah, but, we have a nice stockpile of DVDs ready to be shown. Cue, the DVD projector, Dave. Dave?

     I hope youre joking, because if it ever comes to this, you can get yourself another boy.

kirok wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 6:32am:

isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

     Well, Bernie, you know as little technically as you do about politics, which warms my heart.  I'll make it a point to insult Sarah Palin this coming Thon as well!
     In answer to your question, a resounding NO.  As an archival medium, film beats the pants off any digital storage system yet devised.  We have prints & negatives in existence from the 1890s, whereas things shot or stored in digital last year are now unreadable or corrupt.
     The AMPAS just released a two-part report on the dangers of trying to archive digital: they predict (correctly) that almost everything will be lost in one way or another, due to software changes, data corruption, HDD failures, migration problems, compatibility issues, &c &c &c.  The upshot is that we'll live long enough to see it happen, which I assure you I will greatly enjoy!
     The problem lies in digital itself: as there are no "standards," and as formats & software are changing daily, and as digital storage is kept in what as know as a "low volume" format, what can & will happen is that those formats will become unreadable.  Or if one datum is defective during a transfer, that takes the entire file down with it.
     Film, on the other hand, being an analogue format, at least gives you something to work with, even though it may have become damaged.  You can print something off a damaged negative: you cant even access a lost file.  You can project a heavily scratched & spliced print.  You cant even open some video formats anymore.
     But dont worry: we're assured that it's superior.  Oh, and trickle down economics work, too.  And billionaires are job creators.  And the world was made in seven days.  And Elvis is still alive.

R_F_Fineman wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

"2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray...Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad."

     There are both 70 & 35 prints of 2001 available: it's getting your hands on them thats the problem.
     And, again, to put things in perspective:  2001 was shot on 65mm.  The original prints were struck right off the camera negative.  Thats about 35K.  It will be a loooooooooooong time before digital can equal that!
     So, 2K vs 35K.  Just how much picture information do you reckon youre losing there?
     Just because youre seeing a representation of the frame & the cut, doesnt mean youve seen the movie.  It's the difference between seeing 2001 on a Cinerama screen & your Iphone.  Think thats the same thing?  It aint!


Quote:

Given that, according to the Atlantic article, even Martin Scorsese can't score a print of his own film from the 90's

     I wish all the ill in the world on that fast-talking twerp: he hasnt said a single thing about preserving film projection since this debacle began.  Cant get a print of his lousy movie?  Cry me a river.
     BTW, he owns a massive collection thats housed at the Eastman House.  The idea that he doesnt own a print of his own movie is laughable.


Quote:

what does the future hold for LA and Garen's best efforts to find thirteen or so movies in 35mm for the Marathon?

     Lots of prints are still available.  For now.


Quote:

Dave: If DVD must be shown what are the options as far as er, uh, "projection" quality and what can the Somerville provide?

     The DP is now working in House 1.  We can run Blu-Rays & DVDs, no problem.  With a little tweaking, you can get something acceptable, but "acceptable" is as far as it goes.  Comparing it to a print is a sick joke.

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

David K can fill in the tech details, but, to those who think "Digital" is some magical elixar that will "save" movies (for the Marathon and other revival locations) there is one important thing that must be kept in mind: "DIGITAL PROJECTION" does NOT necessarily mean that you are showing a proper digital "print" of a movie (DCP).

     Oy.
     Well, there is a difference between a Blu-Ray & a DCP: the DCP has slightly more information, and will look better on-screen.  BUT:
     "Proper" is a tricky word to use.  If the transfer is lousy (and the article & my own experience make it clear that thats the norm), then it will make no difference which format you see it in.
     If the colour is off, if the sound is remixed horribly, and so forth, it will be like that in every version, because they usually make ONE transfer.  It's not like a print: you get a bad print, you ask for another, maybe thats better.  One of the disadvantages of digital (which is hailed as one of its advantages) is that all copies from the source or master are identical.  And if the master is bad, all the copies from it will be identically so.


Quote:

A few major restorations over the past few years like TAXI DRIVER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA etc. have also had DCP's made.

     Lawrence was a 4K transfer.  4K vs 35K.  Want to guess how much that sucks?


Quote:

But, that 1987 cult film you loved? Faaaaaaaaaaaaat chance that will ever have a DCP made of it.

     Yup.


Quote:

The studio will send you a plain old simple DVD/Blu Ray you can buy online for $6.

     And charge you $250 plus a percentage to show it!


Quote:

One of the great ripoffs going on right now are the Fathom Events screenings like the recent FRANKENSTEIN Halloween special. What they don't tell you is that it's basically an HD TV broadcast that is beamed to local theaters. So, you were paying $10 to see a Turner Classic Movies episode you can see for Free in your home. Un-Fathomable!!!

     In the immortal words of PT Barnum: "Theres one born every minute!"

I've been a part of a discussion of whether even DVDS will exist for much longer, let alone 35mm.

The short answer is "for a while." As record companies have found out, digital downloads aren't as profitable as physical media. Last year was the first time in several years that profits went up. There will always be some form of a "Collector's Market" out there, however small it may become (i.e. Lps).

The larger question about digital streaming, downloads, VOD and the "cloud" is whether movies released exclusively digitally can really be considered "real movies" at all. Since the silent era there have always been orphan films without lasting ownership that have fallen through the cracks. If those orphans didn't find their way to Videotape or TV broadcasts in some way, most became "lost films." In the 80s there was a whole generation of 'Straight to Video' (DTV) productions. Again, if those DTV films didn't get "preserved" on DVD (or TV broadcasts), many only exist in dusty VHS collections or your local Goodwill bins.

Now, we have a situation where some of these so-called "Movies" only exist digitally. They will likely never be broadcast on Cable or Local TV (VOD doesn't count for the purpose of this discussion) - and forget about Theatrical showings. There won't be a DVD/Blu Ray. It's great for a DIY filmmaker to have some outlet online for his work to be seen via streaming or download; But, ten years from now, will those films really still EXIST? Many of the websites that the DIY filmmakers have set up will either no longer exist or become forgotten and/or abandoned like those millions of MySpace accounts. Will mega-sites like Amazon still offer streaming or downloads for a film that has "sold" 1 or 2 streams in the past 5 years? No cable outlet will broadcast such an under-the-radar title. Without a physical DVD or Theatrical showings, how many major publications or websites will have reviewed these films? Sure, an obscure website or blog (if it's still functioning) may have mentioned the movie, but, who will notice?? Of course, there will be the one exception that someone will point out of a superior movie that is remembered, but, what of the hundreds and thousands of others??

Of course, these movies will still "exist" in some form or another on a quantum level, so one could theoretically track it down on a torrent site or in some future cloud database - but, 10 years from now, how will anybody even know about the movie to track it down? Does a movie really exist if nobody knows about it? And, there are already MAJOR questions about file formats, digital storage and compatibility issues. Will a tiny movie on an obscure digital format from 18 years earlier still be playable on future computers?

These are some of the philosophical questions that the new non-physical media world poses. As I noted, it's great for DIY movie-makers to have some outlet to show their work. But, if they are shown only in the most ephemeral of ways, are they really "Movies" in the way we have known them for the past 100+ years?

They used to say this kind of thing about what we now know as e-books....

A minor point but film going all digital takes away the meaning of one of my favorite songs, "Celluloid Heroes" by The Kinks.

Forgive my sentimental side again.

"I wish my life was a nonstop Hollywood movie show.
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes.
Because celluloid heroes never feel any pain.
And celluloid heroes never really die."

A brilliant Letter to the Editor!  ;)

(note: the director of GHASTLY LOVE also has a letter on the same page - WHY didn't it show in 35mm at the Marathon???)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-0721-feedback-20130721,0,2650114.story

I couldn't disagree more strongly with Steven Zeitchik ["All in Black and White," July 14] when he writes, "Because most movies are now shot digitally, modern black and white does have a different look than it did in the 20th century, offering sharper and more vivid contrasts."

The issue with the current state of digitally shot and projected (particularly the latter) movies is that they simply cannot achieve true deep black — nor can they accurately depict shadow detail. For those who can't see this for themselves, I have come up with a very simple test that one can do on the next trip to a movie theater: Look at the movie screen. Almost all theaters have either black cloth or painted black walls as a "frame" around the screen. While watching a digitally shot and projected movie, look at an object in the image that is black. Now, have your eyes drift over to the black "frame" around the screen. You will see that you never see the same level of true black in the movie as the "frame" around the movie. Never.

It's great that moviemakers want to experiment with black and white in current releases. It's just too bad they are more "gray and grayer" than black and white.

time to get a less black frame.





release the cracken

kirok wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 6:59pm:

time to get a less black frame. release the cracken

;D

That's a good one! But, hidden in what, I presume, is your joke is the fact that the industry has perpetrated this scam in order to save money on film prints. Period. It has NEVER been about giving the audience a better experience.

If my 'test' starts making the rounds and folks start to realize how much they are being scammed, then Kirok's idea may actually happen!

Pretty sad. Abandoned, but, perfectly usable, Film Projectors not sold to others or put in a museum - but, sold for scrap metal.

Really sad.  :'(

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/9380887/Cinema-bites-digital-bullet

"One of the decommissioned 35mm projectors has been bought by a private buyer, but the other seven will "end up as scrap", Butler said."

     Pictured is a butchered late model Norelco, manufactured -- I'm guessing -- in 1961 or 62, which means it's been working reliably for longer than any digital projector ever has or ever will.  The door, the mag soundhead, the reel shafts, the upper feed sprocket, the motor controls, have all been removed.  The optical head has been IR modified.  Theres also some strangely constructed lens turret: must be something some machinist made for them; never seen anything quite that stupid before.
     The article contains what we all have to admit are now the standard lies about digital.  It's actually wearying, but it just goes to show that old lies never die, they just get recycled (just listen to anyone on the political right: same arguments they were making in the nineties, and eighties, and seventies, and fifties, and forties, and thirties....).
     Wonder what those lying twerps at that NZ cinema will say when their server freezes, their light engine tanks, their encryption key fails, their software has compatibility issues -- or any of the other myriad of problems Ive been wrestling with ever since these gigantic piles of garbage were installed -- & they have to give out more refunds in a month than they did for the previous several years.  Do you suppose theyll write an article about that?
     The question was rhetorical.   :P

Whenever someone gives me one of those lines about how Digital is better than film projection, I challenge them with my Black Test: http://sf.theboard.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1318602045/93#93

So far, NOBODY has come back to me to say that I'm wrong and that Digital can match the black level of film. NOBODY. They'll hem and haw, make excuses and change the subject, but, they can't prove me wrong.




David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 9^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

...      The article contains what we all have to admit are now the standard lies about digital.  It's actually wearying, but it just goes to show that old lies never die, they just get recycled (just listen to anyone on the political right: same arguments they were making in the nineties, and eighties, and seventies, and fifties, and forties, and thirties....).      Wonder what those lying twerps at that NZ cinema will say when their server freezes, their light engine tanks, their encryption key fails, their software has compatibility issues -- or any of the other myriad of problems Ive been wrestling with ever since these gigantic piles of garbage were installed -- & they have to give out more refunds in a month than they did for the previous several years.  Do you suppose theyll write an article about that?      The question was rhetorical.   :P

     At long, long last, my sarcasm finally fails me:
     http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/12/digital-transition-doc-side-by-side-gets-archived-on-film/

Yup. And, it absolutely sucks that I live in a city where it's nearly impossible to see a 1st run film in 35mm.

Damn, I hate digital projection the more and more I see it. And, it's an absolute DISGRACE that FRANCIS HA & NEBRASKA are being called "black & white" movies when they were shot in color digial and projected on digital. The "black" is fu#&ing GRAY!

They finally did it! They blew it up! Damn you, damn you all to HELL! Paramount Pictures is the first studio to formally announce that they will no longer strike ANY 35mm film prints to U.S. theaters. So, some 1,000 movie theaters without digital will NO LONGER be able to show ANY new Paramount movie. But, because some foreign countries haven't largely converted they will still strike some prints - so, it's ok to send a 35mm film print to Bolivia, but, not Boise? WTF?! Oh, and until the technology improves, you will NEVER see True Black on screen for any all Digital release (not to mention crappy shadow detail). The key line in the article: " the cost of delivering a single print, to less than $100 from as much $2,000." Don't let any studio flack (or tech head) try and convince you the move to digital is about artistic quality - it's ALL about the ca$h.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-digital-20140117,0,5245137.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=71043#axzz2qhk1rSDD

Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.

Oh, there are TONS of articles and posts out there from folks who talk about "perfect images", "rock steady frames", "no scratches" and the like. And, have you visited many theater websites when they convert over to digital?

You'd think they just re-invented cinema....



Jay Seaver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.

Jay Seaver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.

     As usual, Jay, you know nothing technically.  That is a lie they like to tell.  They also lie about the quality being as good as film.  Heres a quote from the article:

"Digital cinema provides great benefit to our patrons, in the quality of the presentation, in the flexibility of programming, in 3D, in alternative content, and in so many other ways."

     Allow me to be the first to call bull s h i t on that.

L.A. Connection wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

Oh, there are TONS of articles and posts out there from folks who talk about "perfect images", "rock steady frames", "no scratches" and the like.

     These are, again, the lies they have all settled on.

All praise to Christopher Nolan. He hates 3-D and hasn't bought the kool-aid about the ripoff and sham that is Digital. 35MM film will live as long as folks like Nolan still have pull. http://www.thewrap.com/christopher-nolan-great-gatsby-worked-3d-isnt/

Hardly the biggest QT fan, but I heartily endorse this quote: "Why would an established film-maker shoot on digital? I have no futting idea at all," Tarantino said. "Digital projection is death of cinema as I know it. It's television in public. The fact that most films aren't presented in 35mm means the war is already lost. I'm hopeful that we're going through a woozy, romantic period for the ease of digital. I'm hoping the next generation will have more sense and realise what they've lost."

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/may/23/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained-tv-series-cannes

     More:

     http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/05/23/quentin_tarantino_declares_death_of_cinema_at_cannes.html

     http://www.indiewire.com/article/quentin-tarantino-blasts-digital-projection-at-cannes-its-the-death-of-cinema

     The comments in all of them are typically stupid.

You may not like his films, but at least Tarantino is on our side in the d vs. film arena.

David the Projectionist wrote on May 23^rd, 2014 at 10:32pm:

More:      http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/05/23/quentin_tarantino_declares_death_of_cinema_at_cannes.html      http://www.indiewire.com/article/quentin-tarantino-blasts-digital-projection-at-cannes-its-the-death-of-cinema      The comments in all of them are typically stupid.

what about the fact that 35mm will be projected with multiple defects such as scratches, skips and the inevitable mechanical jam which leads to on screen incineration. digital eliminates these at some cost. it's a trade off. and i have faith that the defects in digital can be circumvented. perhaps a neuro implant to process the visual information.

If one needs a neuro implant to process any sort of  information, I doubt that the quality of visual media would be your first concern.

Of course you are buying in the lie line of the digital apolgists enthusiasts that digital is 'perfect'. Guess you've never seen a digitally projected image freeze up or become so pixillated that it looks like hell. Or one where a "mechanical" or digital flaw in the DCP doesn't allow for the movie to even be shown AT ALL (I've been to two such where they had to cancel the screening). And, just yesterday I attended a digital screening where the projector keep flashing throughout the full two hours.

So much for the alleged 'perfection'.



kirok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 10:09am:

what about the fact that 35mm will be projected with multiple defects such as scratches, skips and the inevitable mechanical jam which leads to on screen incineration. digital eliminates these at some cost. it's a trade off. and i have faith that the defects in digital can be circumvented. perhaps a neuro implant to process the visual information.

the neuro implant could make you unconcerned.


pogo wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

If one needs a neuro implant to process any sort of  information, I doubt that the quality of visual media would be your first concern.

i didn't say digital was perfect. i said let's not ignore the flaws of analog. there is a tradeoff



L.A. Connection wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Of course you are buying in the lie line of the digital apolgists enthusiasts that digital is 'perfect'. Guess you've never seen a digitally projected image freeze up or become so pixillated that it looks like hell. Or one where a "mechanical" or digital flaw in the DCP doesn't allow for the movie to even be shown AT ALL (I've been to two such where they had to cancel the screening). And, just yesterday I attended a digital screening where the projector keep flashing throughout the full two hours. So much for the alleged 'perfection'. kirok wrote on Jun 9th, 2014 at 10:09am: what about the fact that 35mm will be projected with multiple defects such as scratches, skips and the inevitable mechanical jam which leads to on screen incineration. digital eliminates these at some cost. it's a trade off. and i have faith that the defects in digital can be circumvented. perhaps a neuro implant to process the visual information.

K: You may not have used the word 'perfect', but the digiheads make is sound like the technology is. Especially compared to old fuddy duddy analog.

1. Even a digital 'print' is still a copy. Things can go wrong from the file stage to the theater to the projector.

2. There's a bulb in a digital projector, too. All this talk about dingy 35mm projection because of dim bulbs isn't going away.

3. A projector is still a electro-mechanical object. It can break-down or malfunction as well. (and, because there was over 100 years of tried and true technology behind film projection, there were easy repairs and work-arounds that could be accomplished in the projection booth. A digital projector or DCP fails, and, it can be the end of showings for that day (or days if the failure happens on a holiday weekend)

The myth of Digital as a perfect delivery system is just that - A Myth.

I think I'll just leave this link to director William Friedkin talking about 35mm film here and head for the shelter.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/william-friedkin-says-studios-make-great-filmmakers-glad-35mm-is-dead-275

Obviously, Freidkin hasn't taken my Black Test or he'd know Digital still has a long way to go. And, he's obviously going deaf at his old age if he thinks CD's are "perfect" compared to a properly recorded and played back analog source.

And, more seriously, at Friedkin's point in his career, he'd do a movie on VHS tape if it means he can get a project even made.


da_Bunnyman wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

I think I'll just leave this link to director William Friedkin talking about 35mm film here and head for the shelter. http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/william-friedkin-says-studios-make-great-filmmakers-glad-35mm-is-dead-275

If I may, perhaps we should also consider that on the wider scale of motion picture presentation, digital projection is still in its infancy. Of course it isn't perfect, and it never will be. No format, including 35mm, is and ever could be. There will always be mistakes and limitations.

However, film projection grew and evolved over time in many ways that enhanced the movie-viewing experience; the inclusion of soundtracks to film prints, the development of color, the adoption of cinemascope, the innovations of 70mm and IMAX.

Who's to say digital can't follow the same route? Perhaps over time, those problems involving black levels and sharpness can be resolved. We've certainly seen advances in digital cameras allowing the look of digitally-shot productions to approach the high level of quality we associate with film. We may look back on this period in the far future and be stunned at advances that digital projection has made over film projection.

It's also worth noting the opportunities that digital shooting, and as a consequence, digital projection offer independent filmmakers today. Twenty years ago, an aspiring director hoping to get a movie shown at a festival for distribution wouldn't get anywhere unless he or she had the cash to have a print made for exhibition. Now, there are fewer barriers between the filmmaker and the chance to have their movie shown on a proper movie screen.

I certainly worry over the end of film for the sake of movies that probably won't get the kind of digital restoration necessary for theatrical exhibition, the kind of movies that so often get shown at the 'Thon. For the sake of those titles, film projection will probably be the only way many will get screened and I hope there's always a place for it.

But for those movies yet to be shot, perhaps we should be a bit patient with the technology. Transitions are always painful, particularly for those whose livelihood is bound up in the old model but it does no one any good to curse the future while it's still forming. After all, if we never made room for new innovations, we'd still be watching silent movies.

No doubt a fair take. But, the big "IF" is whether the industry will strive for better projection if the general public (and even clueless folks like William 'Oscar Winning' Freidkin) already think digital is "perfect".

It took decades for CD's to really improve. Sadly, by that time, they were overtaken by MP3's which are even worse (far worse) than early CDs! Music, while more portable than ever, is also the worst-sounding it has been since the 'groove-cramming' and cheapo-grade vinyl days of the late 70s-Early 80s.

If folks don't fight back, digital projection will get worse, not better. Theaters are already experimenting with digital streaming and Blu Ray projection in theaters. Fathom Events broadcasts crappy TCM-cable level events into movie theaters and charges $10 for the privilige.

As to the ease of use for new filmmakers. Great. But, the glut is getting pretty overwhelming, too. 


UncleTim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 2:15am:

If I may, perhaps we should also consider that on the wider scale of motion picture presentation, digital projection is still in its infancy. Of course it isn't perfect, and it never will be. No format, including 35mm, is and ever could be. There will always be mistakes and limitations. However, film projection grew and evolved over time in many ways that enhanced the movie-viewing experience; the inclusion of soundtracks to film prints, the development of color, the adoption of cinemascope, the innovations of 70mm and IMAX. Who's to say digital can't follow the same route? Perhaps over time, those problems involving black levels and sharpness can be resolved. We've certainly seen advances in digital cameras allowing the look of digitally-shot productions to approach the high level of quality we associate with film. We may look back on this period in the far future and be stunned at advances that digital projection has made over film projection. It's also worth noting the opportunities that digital shooting, and as a consequence, digital projection offer independent filmmakers today. Twenty years ago, an aspiring director hoping to get a movie shown at a festival for distribution wouldn't get anywhere unless he or she had the cash to have a print made for exhibition. Now, there are fewer barriers between the filmmaker and the chance to have their movie shown on a proper movie screen. I certainly worry over the end of film for the sake of movies that probably won't get the kind of digital restoration necessary for theatrical exhibition, the kind of movies that so often get shown at the 'Thon. For the sake of those titles, film projection will probably be the only way many will get screened and I hope there's always a place for it. But for those movies yet to be shot, perhaps we should be a bit patient with the technology. Transitions are always painful, particularly for those whose livelihood is bound up in the old model but it does no one any good to curse the future while it's still forming. After all, if we never made room for new innovations, we'd still be watching silent movies.

     Other than the crap about Tarantino, I'd say he hits the nail on the head.

     http://online.wsj.com/articles/christopher-nolan-films-of-the-future-will-still-draw-people-to-theaters-1404762696

     And then theres this.
     Talk about a squeaker.
     Very depressing.

David the Projectionist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

And then theres this.      Talk about a squeaker.      Very depressing.

I don't have much use for QT and Apatow, but, these are some pretty big names lining up behind film. And, what happened to Mr. Film Lover Scorsese? I guess he's drinking the digital cool-aid now. Might be senility.

Made a tiny indie flick that was shot, edited and released only on Digital? GOOD LUCK PRESERVING IT, BRO:

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/unhappy-medium-the-challenges-with-archiving-digital-video/

"digital formats are much more expensive to preserve. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences estimates the annual cost of maintaining a digital master at $12,500, 11 times that of film."

"Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs), which studios send to most movie theaters instead of film reels. Encrypted to prevent piracy, each DCP can be played in one theater’s projector, at certain times, for a certain period. “It’s as good as a doorstop for us,” Lukow says."

L.A. Connection wrote on Sep 21^st, 2014 at 4:06pm:

"digital formats are much more expensive to preserve. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences estimates the annual cost of maintaining a digital master at $12,500, 11 times that of film." "Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs), which studios send to most movie theaters instead of film reels. Encrypted to prevent piracy, each DCP can be played in one theater’s projector, at certain times, for a certain period. “It’s as good as a doorstop for us,” Lukow says."

     The really revealing quote is this one:

    
Quote:

"With brighter projector lamps and modern screens," he points out, "a film will never look to us the way it did to its first audiences."

     Screens havent changed all that much, & brighter than carbon arcs?  Really?
     What a maroon.  :o

The brightness issue is one of the oft-mentioned things by supporters of digital. They will go on and on about some two-bit theater who never changed their bulbs unless they completely burnt out in the days of 35mm film projection. It's also one of the reasons I always support film by adding "when properly projected" - like that theater I've heard about in Somerville.

Of course, what the digital nitwits don't seem to get is:

1. That digital projectors have bulbs, too. Eventually, they won't be all shiny and new, either. What makes the digital dorks think that those same theater owners will change these bulbs any more diligently than they did with film projectors??

2. Also, if these lame theater owners didn't keep up their film projectors, what makes folks think that DCP's will always be the newest and greatest AND keep up with all the software and hardware upgrades?

     Today's big laugh is brought to you by moronic theatre owners who let themselves get railroaded into installing DPs while scrapping their film projectors.  Get a load of this.

     Just try to imagine how sorry I feel for these bozos.  Why "step back in time?"  I dunno....    'cause it's BETTER?   ;D ;D ;D ;D

     TerrorThon prints are showing up.  I'll post a report, if anyone's interested in attending.

I've been telling everyone who will listen that Film projection is still superior to Digital projection for years (oh, and that  Somerville projectionist as well)! And, now Imax is rolling out new Laser projection and, buried in their promo speak - they admit the truth!
Yup, Imax admits that DCP's have inferior black level! And, though they are pumping up their new 'frickin' lasers', they say that it closely matches film. (meaning, by default, that they admit that DCPs were inferior all along!).

http://deadline.com/2015/04/imax-with-laser-projectors-chinese-theater-richard-gelfond-1201410901/

Our local film society is showing a documentary that , I am sure, many of you have seen.
Out Of Print, according to the blurb, focuses on the New Bounty Cinema, an aggressively 35mm house in LA. which Tarentino (who by the way bites the big one) subsidized and then bought. Taking off from the theater, the film describes "The digital-age realities that threaten the existence of all 35mm repertory cinemas."
Ya think? Sounds interesting.
Google for lots of descriptions. Here's one.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2393917/

Two notes. I am aware that Tarentino's treatment of the  theater & its staff has caused, to put it mildly "Controversy."

& - The Cleveland Cinematheque has been showing 35 mm for 30 years. They still are aggressive in finding 35mm cinema & providing a venue for world and classic films, showing around 28 unique films a month. They first were forced to show works available in digital only  at a commercial theater and then to install digital projection at their main venue. They still show the large bulk of their film in 35. You can look them up. They are fantastic.
Available at their ticket sales counter,  a bumper sticker,
"35MM. The Farewell Tour"

As you might gather, this is a very personal story to me. I have seen more movies at the New Beverly than probably any theater over my lifetime.

WAY too much to write. But, the saddest irony is that once QT was successful with his coup attempt, he antagonized many in the community. The filmmaker of the Doc in question, Julia Marchese, was forced out of the theater shortly thereafter. Yes, she made a movie about the place and then was booted (or forced out depending on your POV). So, a movie ABOUT the New Beverly has never played the New Beverly - and, likely never will.

I have also never been to the place since the coup. The longest I have ever gone without going since 1985.



pogo wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 11:28am:

Our local film society is showing a documentary that , I am sure, many of you have seen. Out Of Print, according to the blurb, focuses on the New Bounty Cinema, an aggressively 35mm house in LA. which Tarentino (who by the way bites the big one) subsidized and then bought. Taking off from the theater, the film describes "The digital-age realities that threaten the existence of all 35mm repertory cinemas." Ya think? Sounds interesting. Google for lots of descriptions. Here's one. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2393917/ Two notes. I am aware that Tarentino's treatment of the  theater & its staff has caused, to put it mildly "Controversy." & - The Cleveland Cinematheque has been showing 35 mm for 30 years. They still are aggressive in finding 35mm cinema & providing a venue for world and classic films, showing around 28 unique films a month. They first were forced to show works available in digital only  at a commercial theater and then to install digital projection at their main venue. They still show the large bulk of their film in 35. You can look them up. They are fantastic. Available at their ticket sales counter,  a bumper sticker, "35MM. The Farewell Tour"